Volume 48 Number 80
                    Produced: Sun Jul  3 15:59:06 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Accepting Psak without Reviewing
         [Allen Gerstl]
Amen to non-live voices
         [Carl A. Singer]
Gay pride messages (was Loan Practices)
         [Abbi Adest]
Guggenheim and "yitgadel veyitkadesh"
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
Kaddish at a minyan you're not davening with
         [Martin Stern]
Maariv and Shavuot
         [Martin Stern]
Paid kaddish
         [Joel Rich]
Second Job / Volunteering (3)
         [Ari Trachtenberg, Gershon Dubin, Jeanette Friedman]
         [Ira L. Jacobson]


From: Allen Gerstl <acgerstl@...>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:13:17 -0400
Subject: RE: Accepting Psak without Reviewing

Carl A. Singer <casinger@...>
>The fundamental problem here is that a person can pick up a telephone
>and get a psak from literally 1000's of miles away while ignoring their
>community.  No doubt if the community Rav thinks the problem too
>complex he (the Rav) can seek assistance.

FWIW, when Rav Hershel Schachter spoke in Toronto several years ago I
asked him whether someone was obligated to make the Rabbi of the shul to
which he belonged his posek Rav Schacter replied that such did not
appear necessary according to the REMA (unfortunately I never asked for
a further reference as to which REMA whether in SA, TurSA or Teshuvot
HaREMA and I haven't researched further to find the appropriate

The late Rabbi A.H. Rabinowitz in his book The Jewish Mind, discusses
the basis of Rabbinical Authority in one of the chapters of that book
and it would appear that according to him when there is no unified
community, that is when there are various shuls with their own Rabbanim
that one confers authority by voluntary acceptance. Thus if somone asks
a specific sheelah and requests a pesak he is conferring authority as to
that sheelah.

Much as I sympathize with the sentiment behind Carl's posting, as a
practical matter this works well.  Otherwise, frankly I would have great
difficulty in considering belonging to a shul in which the Rav's
hashkafot differed greatly from my haskafot given that when dealing with
the gray areas of halachah hashkafah counts - as it should.



From: Carl A. Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:47:46 -0400
Subject: Amen to non-live voices

From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
> Technology makes several other situations possible.  What about a
> synthesized voice rather than a recording?

Good question.  

There are people without a larynx who speak via a taught whispering
technique.  It seems to me (not paskening) that to NOT answer amen to
their brochas would certainly be a violation of Koved haBris.

A similar situation comes up via an (electronic) artifcial larynx.

Carl Singer


From: Abbi Adest <abbi.adest@...>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:24:54 +0200
Subject: Re: Gay pride messages (was Loan Practices)

Hillel Markowitz wrote:

> I think that the reason you do not see such obvious "indignation" is
> that the loan pratices examples are seen as individuals violating the
> Torah (or causing a chillul Hashem).  However, actions such as the "gay
> pride" parade in Jerusalem are attempts to claim that invalid practices
> are somehow *correct*.  It would be as if someone attempted to state
> that eating nonKosher food is a "mitzvah" and attempted to get that
> "viewpoint" spread throughout the Jewish community.  An example that
> comes to mind is when the workers circles would deliberately schedule a
> treif dinner/dance for Yom Kippur.  Similarly, in more modern times,
> there have been Jewish Federations who would choose a nonkosher caterer
> and make sure that no kosher food was available for community
> functions.

You are making many assumptions here that I think veer somewhat into
motzi shem ra.

First, it is not my impression that the organizers of the gay pride
parades are making any claims that they are looking or demanding
halachic stamps of approval. I don't think many or any of the would
claim that their bedroom practices are sanctioned by halacha. What they
are looking for is acceptance as human beings, regardless or despite the
lifestyle they choose to lead, and the tolerance and respect that goes
along with that (back to the k'vod habriyut discussion).

Whether that respect and acceptance can or should be given by all
sectors of society, including the halachic one, is certainly debatable;
but making that decision with knives, as one or two charedi men decided
to do at the parade yesterday, is definitely not sanctioned by halacha
and I think it's simply abhorrent.

As for the accusation about Jewish Federations, I find it hard to
believe that one would deliberately not make kosher food availabe for
Orthodox Jews attending their events and since most Federations support
both Orthodox and non-Orthodox institutions, I think this is a grave
accusation to make without proof or examples.

Shabbat Shalom
Abbi Adest


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:03:47 +0300
Subject: Re: Guggenheim and "yitgadel veyitkadesh"

REMT noted:

      meaning of Aramaic words.  However, the Aramaic meaning is
      irrelevant: the Gaon's reason for saying -deil and -deish instead
      of -dal and -dash is because he says the words in question are
      Hebrew, and not Aramaic. (Ma'asei Rav, #54.)  (In the interests of
      full disclosure, I say -dal and -dash; not because of the meaning,
      but because that was the virtually universally accepted
      pronunciation until approximately 40 or 50 years ago.)

Can anyone explain the logic of claiming that the two words are Hebrew
rather than Aramaic?

I am aware of the pasuq that says vehisgadilti vehisqadishti (Ezeq.
28:33), which is pure Hebrew; however, I am also aware of the Hebrew
expression ma`ala ma`ala [Deut 28:43], but in the qaddish that gets
translated to le`eyla le`eyla.  Thus, biblical expressions DO find their
way into the qaddish translated into Aramaic.

Sha`ar Hatziyyun 56:3 refers to the Pri Megadim as his source.  The Pri
Megadim does not explain WHY, but uses the Henau siddur as his

Can anyone explain how--given that both the tzere forms and the patah
forms are correct Hebrew--what the justification would be to reject the
patah in favor of the tzere?  And given the fact that there is no
Sefardi or Yemenite tradition to use anything other than patah there.

This may be of interest
http://www.haoros.com/Archive/?kovetz=803&Cat=11&haoro=0 .  He points
out there that R"Z Henau also stated that (in birkhot qeri'at shema) one
must say "tisboreikh lanetzah" and not "tisborakh."

IRA L. JACOBSON         


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:52:18 +0100
Subject: Kaddish at a minyan you're not davening with

on 30/6/05 10:30 am, <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver) wrote:
> Gershon Dubin writes, in v48n71,
> I was told when I was in aveilus to say kaddish only at the minyan
> at which I was davening.  So the answer according to that pesak is
> (a) EVEN if you're inside the shul already.

Once, when I was an aveil, I came early to hear the shiur between
minchah nad ma'ariv at my shul, where only one person says each
kaddish. As there was no other aveil present so I was asked to say the
Aleinu kaddish, even though I had not davenned minchah there, since we
are particular that it should always be said by someone.

> I was also told this. But once, when I was davening with the early
> minyan, I got there too late for the first kaddish (after "Rabbi
> Yishmael..."), and asked the rabbi if I could hang around at the
> beginning of the later minyan and say it then. I was told I could.

Why should Mike have done so since it is not necessary to say more than
one kaddish a day and he had said at least one that morning?

Martin Stern 


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:13:57 +0100
Subject: Re: Maariv and Shavuot

on 1/7/05 10:12 am, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>

> Of course, I should note that it is impossible to make havdalah before
> the end of Shabbos because it involves a melacha (lighting a fire) and
> the bracha of boreh me'orei ha'eish is an explicit statement as well.

This is not true. If, for some reason, one were to have to daven ma'ariv
and make havdalah on Shabbat afternoon after plag haminchah, one would
not make the berakhah 'boreh me'orei ha'eish' on the havdalah light, nor
for that matter 'boreh minei besamim' on spices. Neither is an intrinsic
part of havdalah as is clear from our practice of saying the former on a
Motsa'ei Shabbat which is Tish'a be'Av when havdalah is not said, and
our omission of the latter when Shabbat is followed by Yom Tov when it
is said (yknh"z).

Martin Stern


From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 05:23:20 -0400 
Subject: Paid kaddish

> I have always wondered about this.  Based on the famous Rabbi Akiva story
> of the orphans' kadduish allowing the father to enter heaven, why would a
> kaddish said by anyone other than a child be of any value to the
> deceased?
> Yossi Ginzberg

Generally true, that's why the minhag is to pay someone who is poor (I
guess to an extent also later to a charitable institution) so that the
"credit" for the mitzvah of tzedaka goes to the deceased.

Joel Rich


From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:41:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Second Job / Volunteering

Though I'm sorry to hear that people are having trouble supporting
themselves as freelancers, it's not clear to me that this means that
people should stop writing stories for free.  Should people stop mowing
their lawns by themselves because they are taking money away from
professional lawn mowers?  How about snow removal, making lunch,
organizing celebrations, etc.?

Freelancers must provide some added skills that editors are willing to
fund ... the alternative is finding another job (not going hungry, G-d
forbid).  In the long run, it is unhealthy and ineffective to
artificially prop jobs that are not competitively feasible.

Ari Trachtenberg,                                      Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten                    mailto:<trachten@...>

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:39:24 GMT
Subject: Second Job / Volunteering

From: <FriedmanJ@...>
> I just came back from a press association conference where a handful
> of freelancers learned that we are an endangered species hovering on
> the edge of extinction because editors no longer want to pay for our
> stories--cause all those people out there want to write for free.

While I can certainly sympathize, why is this different than any
situation in which technology overtook a previous profession/calling and
made it unnecessary?

Hundreds of examples could be mentioned, but since you're in that
industry, whatever happened to linotype operators?
Or should the publishers not have computerized?


From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:43:09 EDT
Subject: Re: Second Job / Volunteering

I started as someone working with linotypes. I got paid for the ability
to put words together in a certain compelling way, which I still do. I
digitzed a number of publications. Digitization has nothing to do with
it. Brains do. In the real world, I make money writing, but in the
Jewish media, where I began, it's a whole other story, and it is ONLY in
the Jewish media we find this phenomenon....the writing the editors pick
up stinks, and the editors complain, but as they say, IT'S FREE.


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:13:23 +0300
Subject: Re: Yitgadal-yitgadell

Eitan Fiorino <AFiorino@...> commented on Wed, 29 Jun 2005
07:47:24 -0400:

      . . . The Scholar's Hagada by Guggenheim (a truly fantastiic piece
      of scholarship that will enhance almost anyone's seder).  He
      claims that those who say "yitgadel veyitkadesh shme raba" are
      actually making the preposterous and theologically problematic
      statement "may His great name magnify and sancify itself" rather
      than what is intended, "may His great name be made great and

This sounds convincing until one recalls that an authentic
Hebrew-language prayer, qedusha of Shabbat and Yomtov shaharit, has
tisgadel vesiskadesh (or tithjadal wethithqadash) and there is no
reflexive meaning associated.

If one wants to check a dictionary, then Even-Shoshan confirms one's
suspicions by noting that the hitpa`el of qof dalet shin has four
meanings, of which one is reflexive (tiher et `atzmo) and three are not
(na`asa qadosh, hitkonen, ne'esar bahana'a).  None of these is identical
to any of the meanings of the verb in the nif`al, by the way.  No
theological problem that I can see.

If Mr. Guggenheim is still alive, his response would be interesting.
Perhaps Eitan can elicit one.

IRA L. JACOBSON         


End of Volume 48 Issue 80